At 13:07 03/26/97 PST, Harry Lewis wrote:
>IBM started prototyping the PWG Job MIB and is now working on what I would call
>a "hybrid" of that MIB. If I can get my act together soon enough, I hope to
>have some time on the JMP agenda next week to present our findings as a result
>of this prototype, the alternate paths we've taken and why.
>>Not only have we found it necessary to simplify our design (which, admittedly
>is specific to printers, not servers) but, in thinking hard about who will use
>each object and what for, we've made some changes that we feel enhance the
>operation of the MIB.
>>I sent e-mail outlining some of our findings a few weeks back but received very
>little response. I've taken that as a sign that, perhaps, everyone is focused
>on IPP and loosing interest in the Job MIB. Therefore, I appreciate your query.
>If there are only a small set of companies interested in the Job MIB, now,
>perhaps we can reach consensus about the scope and complexity. I am willing
>(and hope to be ready) to share our prototype experience and knowledge. I hope
>others will do so as well.
>>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>
Harry,
Sorry not to respond a few weeks ago to your mail, but IPP, and geting
the Job Monitoring MIB ready for the Internet-Draft has taken all my
time. Its clear from the responses to Jay's query, that there is
real interest in the Job Monitoring MIB.
I think your ideas on adding a mapping table that an application can
use to find a specified job without having to copy the entire job table
is the biggest issue left. I encourage you to come to the meeting with
your ideas and make a presentation. Something like adding a table
that has an index that is the identifier that the client knows about.
The hard part is getting such an identifier from the client through the
server into the printer where the printer agent could put it into a
table with an index that the monitoring application
can use in a single get. Perhaps the monitoring application only gets
back the jmJobIndex and has to do one more get to get all the data.
So its an additional mapping table.
Thanks,
Tom